Do long running game franchises inevitably go downhill sooner or later?

[Sixcess]

You know what it's like with movies. They start off good, but by the time of at most the third sequel the strain is starting to show - the original cast and crew are gone and the roster of award winners that made the original have been replaced with a first time director and a bunch of actors you've never heard of, working with half the budget of the first movie, and a script co-written by the new director and whoever else was in the room at the time. Over a weekend. When they were all drunk. At this point all the fans can do is grit their teeth and pray for a remake/reboot in 10 years time.

But is the same true of long running game franchises? True, games franchises don't have exactly the same problems - they don't really have to worry about their virtual stars getting older, and ongoing advances in gaming technology should mean that the newer games at least look better than their predecessors. Nevertheless, I'm struggling to think of a long runner (say 3+ games in the main series) that is as good now as it ever was.

On a related note, even the best franchises tend to have That One Game That Noone Talks About - the dreadful mistake that continues to hang over the franchise even years later, assuming it didn't kill the series off in the first place. Can even a good series ever put "that game" behind them for good?

I'm opening all this up for discussion because although I don't follow many long running franchises I'm curious to see what those of you who have been following a particular series for a long time think on the subject.

 

[shrekfan246]

Judging by how people treat the Sonic franchise, I'll wager that this:

Can even a good series ever put "that game" behind them for good?

Will never happen. Even with the games currently getting progressively better, people still go on and on about how "objectively terrible" every Sonic game is.

Though I think gamers are a dramatic bunch. I never understand cries of "RUINED FOREVER" when it comes to games, especially when the older games that people loved so much aren't retroactively removed from existence just because Metal Gear Solid 4 or Mass Effect 3 might have been a huge disappointment.

I hate Final Fantasy XIII. It's probably the only game I can actually seriously say that about. But just because I hate it doesn't mean my enjoyment of VII-XII has been retroactively destroyed, and it doesn't mean that I'll stop paying attention to future games in the franchise (though XIII-2 and XIII-3 are doing a nice job of that...)

As for the question the thread title asks: I think it depends; On how long the series keeps running, and who gets ahold of it in any transition that might happen. I never really cared about Need For Speed after Hot Pursuit was originally abandoned, but when Criterion was given it to "reboot", I thought they turned out a pretty damn solid game. Silent Hill probably would've been best left alone after 4 was released, instead of being handed over to a bunch of Western developers that don't seem to understand what made the original games so beloved.

 

[Aris Khandr]

Nevertheless, I'm struggling to think of a long runner (say 3+ games in the main series) that is as good now as it ever was.

Pokemon Black/White was widely regarded as the boost that Pokemon needed. Diamond/Pearl/Platinum were kind of bland, and while you get a few complaints about individual Pokemon, the advances for the series as a whole with Black/White were solidly in the "good things" category.

 

[Rawne1980]

Sooner or later they will do.

I can't think of one single long running series that hasn't turned into a cash cow.

 

[janjotat]

Sooner or later they will do.

I can't think of one single long running series that hasn't turned into a cash cow.

I agree completely, but I have noticed that best game in the series is often the second game. After that it goes downhill.
Half-life is the only series that doesn't have THAT GAME and it did get progressively better.

 

[ThriKreen]

...the original cast and crew are gone and the roster of award winners that made the original have been replaced with a first time director and a bunch of actors you've never heard of, working with half the budget of the first movie, and a script co-written by the new director and whoever else was in the room at the time.

Which raises an interesting point to ask: how come for games, no one seems to pay attention to the people that worked on it, only the publisher and studio?

Sure you get some notable leads or figure heads: Lord British, CliffyB, Will Wright, but other times nothing. And face it, even devs have preferences for game styles that can show in the game itself.

 

[AD-Stu]

I haven't really played one since the original, but I thought the Civilization series was still pretty highly regarded, and it's about as long-running as video game series get. There's the Gran Turismo series too. That's off the top of my head.

So yeah, it's definitely possible for a series to maintain quality over a long time. That said, I'd say those series are definitely the exception rather than the rule and most that run that long turn into pure cash cows (Call of Duty, AssCreed) or worse.

 

[Vault101]

especially when the older games that people loved so much aren't retroactively removed from existence just because Metal Gear Solid 4 or Mass Effect 3 might have been a huge disappointment.
.

not to sound like one of those people (I'm going to sound like one of those people) but in ME3's case its a little different

its not just the "your choices don't matter" thing, thats part of it and the games are very replayable because you can change things up....

but its also that a complete "set" like LOTR or the orginal starwars trillogy or even nolans dark knight are enjoyable as one big expereince, with ME now the enjoyment gotten from replaying has been diminished...because you know where its all going to end...in fact from the very first games there was a huge emphasis on the ending

on topic I'd say trilogies don't count as they are a complete package

ok I'll shut up now

it is likley in that keeping somthing going for that long is bound to get stale/old or lose its charm...that said depending on its direction it can remain good

 

[Vault101]

So yeah, it's definitely possible for a series to maintain quality over a long time. That said, I'd say those series are definitely the exception rather than the rule and most that run that long turn into pure cash cows (Call of Duty, AssCreed) or worse.

assasins creed has its heart in the right place...its just to preocupied with dicking around than actual assasinating

 

[Vault101]

Which raises an interesting point to ask: how come for games, no one seems to pay attention to the people that worked on it, only the publisher and studio?

Sure you get some notable leads or figure heads: Lord British, CliffyB, Will Wright, but other times nothing. And face it, even devs have preferences for game styles that can show in the game itself.

true...but "creator loyalty" isnt always a good thing

it makes people decide somthing is crap before they give it a chance because its being made by some new guy, and can keep people going when they have clearly run out of steam *coughtimburtoncough*

 

[recruit00]

I have a perfect quote for this.

"You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain."- Harvey Dent

Some games will go on long enough to start failing.

 

[shrekfan246]

Snip

Not to sound like a complete tool (I'm going to sound like a complete tool though), but I disagree completely. Mostly because I never minded the original endings to begin with and I actually like them with the "Extended Cut" additions, but I don't feel that any of my enjoyment from replaying has been diminished. I can recognize that other people feel differently, which is why I included the thing in the first place, but it's also why I put it in the section that started with "I never understand cries of 'RUINED FOREVER'".

 

[Full]

Which raises an interesting point to ask: how come for games, no one seems to pay attention to the people that worked on it, only the publisher and studio?

Sure you get some notable leads or figure heads: Lord British, CliffyB, Will Wright, but other times nothing. And face it, even devs have preferences for game styles that can show in the game itself.

This talentless hack speaks the truth. Art is usually defined by personalities from it's artists, no denying that. Even if something is streamlined and forced or something, there is still an at least itty-bitty difference between the feature in Game A between Game B, due to the specifics of the person working on it.

 

[Andy Shandy]

...the original cast and crew are gone and the roster of award winners that made the original have been replaced with a first time director and a bunch of actors you've never heard of, working with half the budget of the first movie, and a script co-written by the new director and whoever else was in the room at the time.

Which raises an interesting point to ask: how come for games, no one seems to pay attention to the people that worked on it, only the publisher and studio?

Sure you get some notable leads or figure heads: Lord British, CliffyB, Will Wright, but other times nothing. And face it, even devs have preferences for game styles that can show in the game itself.

I may have interpreted this question wrong (and please tell me if I have) but my guess is that it would be far too much work to try to remember every single person who worked on a game. I think the highest amount of employees I would recognise from a company would be Gearbox. And those would be Randy Pitchford, Mikey Neumann, Anthony Burch and Chemical Alia [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/profiles/view/Chemical+Alia] and the main reason I know the latter three is thanks to The Escapist (Anthony and Mikey's show Anthony Saves The World, and Chemical Alia being on the forums here, respectively)

OT: I wouldn't just saw they go downhill, as that makes it sound like all franchises just steadily get worse, but that franchises have peaks and valleys, especially the longer running franchises. To use one of my favourite franchises, Sonic The Hedgehog as an example, Sonic 1, 2 and 3: peaks. Sonic 3D Blast: Valley. Sonic Adventure 1+2: Peak (and nothing you say will convince my otherwise, shrekfan! =P) Sonic '06: Valley (in fact, probably the valliest valley in all of valley-dom) Sonic Generations: Peak. And so on and so forth.

 

[Bostur]

...the original cast and crew are gone and the roster of award winners that made the original have been replaced with a first time director and a bunch of actors you've never heard of, working with half the budget of the first movie, and a script co-written by the new director and whoever else was in the room at the time.

Which raises an interesting point to ask: how come for games, no one seems to pay attention to the people that worked on it, only the publisher and studio?

Sure you get some notable leads or figure heads: Lord British, CliffyB, Will Wright, but other times nothing. And face it, even devs have preferences for game styles that can show in the game itself.

Well people do, if you put a name on the box in big letters. Everyone who played Civilization or Pirates! know the name of Sid Meier.

I'm looking at my Torment box right now. There's no Chris Avellone there. But I see Black Isle, Interplay, Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. The people who work on most games get credited in a long boring list in the back of the manual, or during the boring credits at the end of the game, but who pays attention to that?

Game developers rarely get the star treatment that we are used to from the movies, thats probably the reason. As far as I know most movie actors used to be anonymous before 'talkies' became the popular gimmick in movies. People only started recognizing those actors much later.


On the topic. I think if a franchise goes on long enough it is possible for it to both get an all-time low and a comeback. The best example I can think of is James Bond.

Among game franchises the Civilization series arguably hit a low, with the official, unofficial Call to Power, but after that recovered when Firaxis got the IP back. I believe something similar was the case with the Ultima series at one point.
X-Com is another example. How many thought X-Com Interceptor was good? Anyone who raises their hand will get a whack on the head! But I hear that a lot of youngster like XCOM: Enemy Unknown ;-)

 

[sethisjimmy]

Nah. I've always like videogames for the fact that compared to movies, they tend to do sequels waaay better.

I'd say this is likely because videogames often have somewhat "objective" features that can be improved on in a quantifiable manner, even when the story doesn't improve.

Fan perception of a series is all subjective though. Usually once the series starts to deviate from the original game that made a fan love it, they'll perceive a decline in quality, in what is simply a change in the series.

 

[ThriKreen]

The people who work on most games get credited in a long boring list in the back of the manual, or during the boring credits at the end of the game, but who pays attention to that?

Which goes back to my question, why not? I think it would be interesting to track developer progression, we have sites like www.mobygames.com to assist in this.

Especially in regards to the topic, see a studio's development history and compare it against its employees, and if and when a particular franchise as "jumped the shark".

Kind of how some people say a TV show is going to die when Ted McGinley joins the cast [http://popcultureaddict.com/television/happydays2/], is that true of games too? People have made jokes about Peter Molyneux having an anti-Midas touch. Or when bought out by a publisher, like so many have claimed of EA.

I may have interpreted this question wrong (and please tell me if I have) but my guess is that it would be far too much work to try to remember every single person who worked on a game.

Perhaps, so just start off with one studio and stop tracking someone if they leave. And perhaps to make the name list more manageable, stick to just the content creator types, not marketing, PR, executives of a publisher or the QA department.

 

[Zhukov]

...the original cast and crew are gone and the roster of award winners that made the original have been replaced with a first time director and a bunch of actors you've never heard of, working with half the budget of the first movie, and a script co-written by the new director and whoever else was in the room at the time.

Which raises an interesting point to ask: how come for games, no one seems to pay attention to the people that worked on it, only the publisher and studio?

Because most games are designed by committee to the point that the influence of the individual creators is not perceivable to the people playing the game.

You could remove any one developer from a team and nobody would be able to tell just by playing the game.

 

[ThriKreen]

Because most games are designed by committee to the point that the influence of the individual creators is not perceivable to the people playing the game.

You could remove any one developer from a team and nobody would be able to tell just by playing the game.

Well that's totally incorrect, BUT HEY, what do I know?

 

[Zhukov]

Because most games are designed by committee to the point that the influence of the individual creators is not perceivable to the people playing the game.

You could remove any one developer from a team and nobody would be able to tell just by playing the game.

Well that's totally incorrect, BUT HEY, what do I know?

Do you really think the people playing a game would notice if you replaced Programmer #5 or 3D Artist #7 from the team?